Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
P Srinivasan vs M/O Communications on 17 March, 2023
id ] OA, 0635/2017 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAT BENCH OA NO.635/2017 Dated Friday, the 'day of March Two Thousand Twenty Three CORUM: HON'BLE MR. T.JACOB, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER PB. Srinivasan S/o. K.Pitchai 151/20 Solaiappan Street Kumbakonam 612 001 . Applicant By Advocate M/s Usha Raman Vs. 1. Urion of India, Rep-by The Pastmaster General, Central Region, Trichirappalli-620 001 2. The Superintendent of Post Office Kumbakonam Division, Kumbakonam 612 001 Tanjore District-612001 3. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Office Kumbakonam North Sub Division, Kumbakonam 612 001 ..Respondents By Advocate Mr. M.Kishore Kumar SPC 2 OA 635/2017 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following relief and interim relief:
Relief:
"To call for the records relating to the order Ref: PF/PS/GDS MD- MC/Nirathanallur BO Kumbakonam 612 001 01.10.2016 passed by the Assistant Superintendent of Posts, Kumbakonam North Sub-Division and set aside the order of put off duty and consequently treat the period from 01.10.2016 till date of order as having been in service with all attendant benefits and continuity of service."
interim Relief:
"To direct the Respondents to disburse the allawance and ex gratia amount under Rule 12(3) of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2014 Ta direct the first Respondent to consider the application of the Applicant dated 26,09.2016 submitted to the Staff Lok Adalat, as per the circular issued by the second Respondent vide B1/Staff Adalat/ Digs dated 21.09.2016 at Kumbakonam, irrespective of the pendency of impugned order against the Applicant".
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as follows:
The applicant was initially engaged as acting Postman and Group D full time work in leave vacancles in the department of Post at Kumbakonam Division on 02.01.1995 as an Outsider. He also contended that he had completed 240 days of service from 1995 to 1996. As per the scheme of the department and subsequent interpretations of the scheme, the applicant has submitted his representation to include his name tn the dovetailed list on 22.07.1996. However, his name has not been included though the names of the other three persons, i.e., K.Bharathidasan, K.Thiagarajan and P.Ekambaram who are juniors to the applicant have been included in the said dovetailed list of the casual labour of Kumbakonam Division. Therefore the applicant again submitted a representation to the respondents on 3 OA 6353/2017 22.01.2001 and prayed to Include his name in the said dovetailed list before his juntors, 2.1 As there was no action being aggrieved the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing OA 1302/2001. Upon hearing, by order dated 21.12.2001 this Tribunal has passed an order directing the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant along with other applicants.
Against the direction of this Tribunal, the representation of the applicant was considered by the second respondent and vide its letter dated 13.03.2002 rejected the claim of the applicant. Therefore against the said rejection the applicant has filed another OA No.1111/2002 before this Tribunal with same grievance that his name to be included in the dovetatled list and have to be offered consequential benefit. However, by common order dated 02.01.2003, the OA came to be dismissed on the ground that the applicant cannot claim the benefit in the sald scheme since the applicants were engaged after 1988 and that they did not complete 240 days as on the cut off date. This Tribunal also observed that they have not found any irregularity on the order passed by the department.
2.2 Being aggrieved by the order of this Tribunal, the applicant has approached the Hon'ble High court of Madras by filing WP No.34485/2003 and challenged the said order. By order dated 11.03.2008, the Hon'ble High court of Madras has allowed the writ petition with an observation that in order to have uniformity of all these orders, the petitioners including the present applicant are also entitled to have the benefit of the judgment of the division bench of the Hon'ble High court of Madras passed in the matter of UOI Vs. A.Suguna. In the circumstances, the Hon'ble High court has directed the respondents to include the names of the applicant and other similarly situated persons who are before the Hon'ble High court in dovetailed list and 4 04. 635/2017 to. consider them for future employment. Against the said order, SLP has been filed by the department before the Hon'ble Supreme court and the said case was tagged with SLP(C)No.21825/2006 filed by Union of India Vs. A.Suguna & Others. The said SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 19.02.2015.
2.3 Thereafter only the applicant was given an order of appointment on 15.02.2016 as a GDS Mail Carrier. Since the applicant has been given appointment from 15.02.2016 therefore the applicant has submitted various RTI applications to sort out his legitimate grievances as he has been appointed below his juniors and the applicant has net been considered and placed according to his claim since he was rendering his services as an Outsider from 1995. The applicant has also sought for information under RTI Act and questioning the staff Lok Adalat. Against the said act of the applicant the Superintendent of Posts Issued an. order dated 01.10.2016 and placed the applicant on put off duty and according to the applicant that is. without any show cause notice seeking any explanation and without any inquiry. The said action is against the applicant's representations for his eligible and entitied claim to. place him above his juniors, 2.4 The applicant has submitted representation dated 21.10.2016 and requested to revoke the said put off duty orders and thereafter he has walted more than 90 days, Le., more than 45 days which was a statutory period prescribed for revoking or renewing the put off duty. Since there Is no order, he had given an appeal dated 18.02.207 as the same was sent to the respondents by speed post as to why the applicant's put off duty has neither been revoked nor be renewed and also at the same time the applicant has asked for since he has not been paid any allowances for the period of put off duty so far the applicant has not received any reply to: his appeal, However 5 OA 635/2017 the applicant's came to know from the newspaper Dinathanthi dated 31.03.2017 and department has sent charge memo to the applicant's office and it has been returned as refused, Being aggrieved by the said order of put off duty the applicant has filed the present OA, 3, After notice the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their reply dated 20.08.2017 and denied ail the allegations made by the applicant in his OA in respect of his appointment. According to the direction of the Hon'ble High court the applicant's name has been included in the dovetailed list and he was issued with an appointment order dated 10.02.2016 and he has been absorbed in the GDS post as a GDS MD/MC w.e.f 15.02.2016 and worked as a GDS MD/MC till 30.09.2016.
3.1 The respondents contended that all the representations made by the applicant has been considered against his claim in respect of his right over the juniors and was promptly disposed of by the respondent authorities. While working as a GDS MD/MC. Nirathanallur BO, the applicant has committed the following irregularities; (1) Unauthorised opening of branch office transit bag (2) Submission of representation relates to service matters violating the proper channel (3) Not obeying the orders of superiors and abusing the higher authorities with unparliamentary words, thereby after making a detailed field inquiry against the said allegations and after verifying the same the applicant was placed under put off duty by order dated 01.10.2016 by the 3 respondent.
3.2 The respondent also contended that the applicant's grievances have been considered by the Staff Adalat held on 29.09.2016 in Kurmbakonam Division wherein the applicant and two others have represented their grievances during the said Staff Adalat. As the grievances of the applicant 6 OA 635/2017 could not be settled within Division level his case was referred to the Regional office and as per the direction of the Regional office, Tiruchirapalli, the applicant was given reply for his grievances, vide letter dated 04.11.2016 and 22.02.2017. The applicant's request dated 21.10.2016 was promptly responded and disposed of by letter dated 05.01.2017 and reply was sent to his address mentioned in the said representation. However, the same has been returned as 'Undelivered' to the sender's office, i.e., the second respondent office. The appeal dated 18.02.2017 of the applicant was also disposed of by letter dated 22.02.2017 which was also addressed to the address mentioned in his appeal. However the same was also returned zo the second respondent, viz., sender with the remark 'Undelivered'.
3.3 The respondents also contended that the applicant's put off duty was properly reviewed and the charge sheet under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct ard Engagement) Rules 2011 was issued vide memo dated 31.12.2016. Itis also contended that as far as concerned to the eligible ex-gratia allowance the same has been drawn by the DDO, however the applicant has failed to receive the allowances at the headquarters, i.¢., Nirathanallur BO. The respondents also contended that all the efforts made to deliver the memo of appointing adhoc disciplinary authority, Charge sheet issued against the applicant and appointment of inquiry officer/presiding officer for conducting detailed enquiry under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011 went in vain since the applicant was not ready to accept the sald service and as there is no other alternative newspaper notification was issued only with an intention to enable the applicant to know about the departmental action initiated against him.
3.4 Even after issuing the newspaper notification regarding initiation cf 7 GA 635/2017 departmental inquiry against the applicant he is not cooperating for the inquiry. Even after the preliminary sitting on 19.04.2017 the notice was sent to the applicant's residential address as well as official address. But the applicant has not taken delivery of the said memo and even after knowledge of the said paper publication the applicant has not attended the inquiry. The notification for subsequent sitting of the inquiry issued by the inquiry officer was also returned as 'Undelivered', 3.5 It is also contended that the put off duty Is only a off-side of investigation Into the irregularity committed by the applicant and as such chance was available to the applicant to challenge against the charge framed against him in the charge sheet during the course of the inquiry. According to the rules, ex-gratia allowances for put off duty has been drawn by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer but the applicant failed to receive the sare at his headquarter Nirathanallur BO. Therefore the respondents also requested directions to the applicant to contact the DDO for taking payment of the ex-gratia allowances. The said charge sheet under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011 has been Issued for the misbisbehaviour/misconduct of the applicant. Since the applicant has not participated in the inquiry, ex-parte inquiry has been conducted and the applicant came to be dismissed from service on completion of the Rule 10 inquiry the applicant was awarded with the penalty of Dismissal from Engagement, vide memo dated 17.08.2017.
3.6 The respondents also contended that the applicant has not exhausted all the departmental channels of remedy available to him against the orders passed by the respondents. In view of the same the OA Is devoid of merits and hence prayed for dismissal of the OA.
8 OA 635/20174. To deny the said statements the applicant has filed a rejoinder and to counter the same the respondents have filed reply to the rejoinder. Also the applicant and respondents' counsel have filed their written submissions.
5. Heard Ms.Usha Raman. for the applicant and Mr.M.Kishore Kumar for the respondents. Perused the OA and relevant records along with counter filed by the respondents.
6. As contended by the applicant in respect of his earlier service and inclusion of his narne in the dovetailed list according to the direction of the Hon'ble High court dated 11.03.2008 in WP No.34485/2003 and after the dismissal of the SLP, the respondents department have included the name of the applicant in the dovetailed fist and issued an appointment order dated 10.02.2016 and provisionally appointed him as a GDS MD/MC. After completion of his training the applicant has been absorbed and given reguiar appointment as GDS MD/MC w.e.f 15.02.2016. Thereafter the applicant has worked till 30.09.2016. The respondent's department has issued the said appointment order according to the direction of the Hon'ble High court. However, applicant was having grievances over the said appointment.
Therefore he started making representations one after another.
7. Itis to be noted that the applicant while submitting his representations has not followed the channel of hierarchy which is prescribed under the rules and he was making representation directly to the higher authorities. The applicant was unauthorizedly opening the branch offices transit bank and also not obeying the orders of the superior and abusing the. higher authorities with Unparliamentary words. After noticing all the irregularities a detailed field inquiry on the said allegation has been made and only after the preliminary inquiry the applicant was placed under put off duty by memo 9 OA 635/2017 dated 01.10.2016 by the third respondent. The applicant has also submitted his grievance before the Staff Adalat and since the same was not settled it was referred to the regional office and the same has been considered and reply has been given to the applicant and sent through registered letter at his given address in the said representation. However, same has been returned as 'Undelivered'. The applicant's appeal dated 18.02.2017 for revocation of suspension has also been considered by the respondent competent authority and vide their letter dated 22.02.2017 they have sent the sald communication to the address mentioned in the appeal for the perusal of the applicant. The applicant's put off duty was reviewed according to the time frame under the rules and he has also been issued with charge sheet under Rule 10 of GDS Conduct & Engagement Rules, vide memo dated 30.12.2016.
8 It is to be noted that whatever communication made by the department to the address given by the applicant was returning back to the respondent department. Therefore the attempt to serve the same has been made by publishing the same in the newspaper.
9. It is to be noted that it is not in dispute that the applicant was not aware about the said action initlated by the respondents by Issuing a charge memo. Since the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the present OA though he is challenging the order of put off duty dated 01.10.2016 however he has also mentioned about the said newspaper publication In the Dinathanthi. newspaper. Though the applicant was aware about the said charge memo, he has not made any attempt to. submit any representation and request the department over the said chargé memo and participate in the said inquiry to prove his innocence when he was having an opportunity to } 16 OA 635/2017 appear before the inquiry officer and to support his case in the said inquiry.
10. itis to be noted that the applicant has challenged the put off duty in the present OA and in the absence of any interim relief it is the duty of the applicant to approach the authorities and to participate in the sald Inquiry. However, the respondents have initiated action and proceeded ex-parte against the applicant and on completion of Rule 10 inquiry dismissed the applicant from service. By way of reply to rejoinder'the said fact has been brought on record. by the respondents, Even after that the applicant has not taken any efforts to challenge the same by way of appropriate remedies which are available and the applicant has not exhausted the sald remedies. Neither the applicant has challenged the same in the present OA nor he has raised appropriate pleadings/grounds which are available under the law.
li. In view of the said position, the order dated 01.10.2016 placing him on put off duty which continued till his dismissal from service and by the dismissal order dated 17.08.2017 the said put off duty got merged with his dismissal from service. Hence. in the said circumstances, in our considered view, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the respondents and no interference [fs called for. OA being devoid. of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.